The FIA announced today the new rules for Formula One, where known. The cuts are very deep, and partly what it holds for the future in the eye, fans will not agree exactly happy.
The shock of the withdrawal of Honda was probably sponsored, as we have discussed the changes in Formula One. And as is usual in such moments, it was decided some rather odd things. Things that are unusual in financial terms and things that will make the future of Formula One with new challenges. Here, the teams are not so much affected, as the fans.
Here are the changes along with my assessment:
- The term of the motors is extended to three races. Changes may be made only on the intake and fuel injection. It has even set a precise number of engine number. All pilots in the season eight engines for the race, and four of the tests available. The maximum speed is 18,000 rpm / min limits. The engines are to be used until 2012 in its current form.
Certainly not a bad decision. The insanity overdone up to to 200 engines per team and the season is madness anyway been. Obviously you want to restrict the number of engines that can run in the Friday sessions, but as accurate You may not be read by the information received. The speed can be screwed down in order. Whether the engine is now 18 minutes, 19 or 20,000 U / spins, is of interest to very few fans.
- The prices for customer engines to be halved in 2009 and 2010 are expected to fall below 5 million €. A motor unit is not only time, and it is looking for a manufacturer that produces a customer engine cheap.
Force India and Williams will be pleased. Good decision. Also reduces costs for manufacturers and teams that want to break into F1.
- There is (probably from 2010) give a standard transmission. Other components will also be standardized.
Ok - you can make. Again, it is of interest to the fan rarely turns to how much delay milliseconds Team 1 versus Team 2. Obviously, the producers agreed that in the area anyway is not much to get out. In an interview is probably that the brakes are designed uniformly.
- No more tests during the season. There is only the Friday session.
Here, too - good idea. The tests were unnecessary and only cost money. Whether we can now test on Friday as planned times, instead of three then six hours, was not communicated. Should we also introduce a motor restriction on Fridays, you will probably stay with the three hours. The driving operation on Friday but should be backed up, because you can ausporbieren new parts in the season, only on this day.
- Wind tunnel research will be contained
The teams are allowed to test only 60% with large models, the wind speed must be at most 50 m / s. How do you want to check this, I do not know. Not even how to check that teams can be produced from parts Zulieferen elsewhere, then this test the parts in their own wind tunnel at top speed around the clock.
- All information on fuel and tires before the race disclosed
An end to the strategy. We should learn from the quality of what the teams have in the tank. The idea of strategy rarely works anyway. Most all teams have been on a similar strategy on the go.
- From 2010, the tire warmers banned
I did not understand anyway, why the must-have.
- From 2010 there will be a uniform system of telemetry and radio boxes
This may suggest that the FIA would like to put this data via the data channel. Similar to the NASCAR could then listen to all radio communication between team and driver. If I met well.
- From 2010 there will be a uniform KERS.
That would be a yes sometimes occur earlier. Place to put millions into a senseless development, one would simply have waited a year. 2009 KERS is allowed but not mandatory. Since BMW has probably enforced, which will supposedly have the best system. And I find it very inconsistent. So 2009 may then be advised in the race, whose KERS is currently active. And Toyota, which will come anyway until mid-season with KERS, the season can check off the same time, if the KERS should really get the advantage you nachsagt him. Since the policy has grown again over the expertise.
- As of 2010, banned refueling
I know the Formula One with and without refueling. And I mean that the refueling of the tension has really helped. It may from time to time go wrong, drivers can try using a longer or shorter stints, to come forward. I thought that was really exciting. If the refueling banned, also makes little sense changing tires. The A1 has forced the pit stop, not like the DTM, so nothing introduced. I very much fear that Formula One is not the pit stop to a series, where the races are not exactly bursting with excitement. So you can not see how in the 80s, to a pure consumption formula you want to ...
- ... The race length to shorten.
And that's actually not so now. The FIA WTCC has already evaporated in the race length such that there really is no race more. If you will soon have only 60 minutes or less is on the way, you have a sprint race that is quickly over, as one "Oops" can say. Should pay the fans, the exorbitant sum for the tickets will also be glad when they see their money for just a short show event.
- The quality will again be changed
What is not yet known. Let's see what comes.
The FIA has made, together with the FOTA, many correct decisions. But if you really prohibits refueling together and shortened the race, then lost the Formula One suspense. It not even the loss of tradition, annoys me. The idea scares me off easy, that the race will only run an hour or less. If it were me, I would even extend the race. So at least 90 minutes with at least two pit stops. I have in terms of these changes, not a good feeling, especially when I see what happened to the WTCC.
How the Formula One knows of, but everything must not happen. By 2010, there is still a long time when many manufacturers to rethink their commitment.
And what else?
On weekends, the Race of Champions that will be transferred to Euro sport.
12/13/2008
| Record. | Clock 11:20 | AFOs | Sepang | MotorsTV |
| Record. | Clock 11:30 | ATS F3 | 2008 season | Premiere |
| Record. | Clock 14:25 | GT Open | 2008 season | MotorsTV |
| Record. | Clock 15:20 | Dutch Supercar | 2008 season | MotorsTV |
| Record. | Clock 16:10 | Trophee Andros | Val Thorens | MotorsTV |
14/12/2008
| Record. | Clock 09:00 | IRL | Miami 2008 | Premiere |
| Record. | Clock 10:25 | GT Open | 2008 season | MotorsTV |
| Record. | Clock 11:00 | A1 GP | Sepang | Premiere |
| Record. | Clock 11:20 | Dutch Supercar | 2008 season | MotorsTV |
| Record. | Clock 13:05 | Trophee Andros | Val Thorens | MotorsTV |
| LIVE | Clock 15:45 | RoC | London | Euro |
| Record. | Clock 16:45 | F1 | Australia + quality | Premiere |
| LIVE | Clock 15:45 | RoC | London | Euro |
| Record. | Clock 21:00 | NASCAR | Daytona 500 2008 | Premiere |
| Record. | Clock 21:45 | RoC | London | € 2 |
No related posts.
Ah, but now no motor unit? This is already bissl with KERS ridiculed, just as with the wind tunnels.
And why would you ban refueling shorten and race? This is again something I do not just coral. We should ban these races tend to be over after 80 minutes and no overtaking maneuvers were there. Back to destroy some traditional routes and all conversions and the Tilke-built rail cars.
Only the arrangements to try to make perfect sense. Most of the other ideas I think is wrong and would mean that the F1 final with the best will no longer could be called the pinnacle of motor sport. The back and forth with KERS is also the best example of that is traded here haphazard and unprofessional.
What is the banning of tire warmers is frankly a mystery to me (like so many of these decisions), which are so expensive that passes for "cost-cutting measure" which is now certainly not. It's as if they would save on the postage stamps of the team, as does even the loss of the damned tanks more sense. If you want to really save effectively, you have to start now with the engines, because they eat is still time to just half the season, a team budget. Was rumored that the "motor unit" again another little softened and moved a clear indication that various manufacturers probably signaled a possible medium-term exit is (read: threatened) have. Automotive companies that can no longer plausibly advertise the fact that this particular F1 racing car is powered by its built from its power unit with its technical know-how, are interested not for Formula One.
The Rumlaboriererei at the races (scope, duration, no refueling, etc.) I think is nonsense, none of this makes the team operating significantly cheaper but all of it makes the race dramatically uneventful and unattractive. And that bothers me very, well me this disrespectful treatment interferes with traditions. In contrast to those fans is worth the Formula One Men's obviously not just any "holy". Well, speaking as a fan I have a Formula One, which is so choked down, do not anymore. In the press release about this whole topic of the speech of outstanding market analysis is to feel what the fans really want, which you then even before all these decisions are based wil be fully implemented. All surveys repeatedly, according to the F1 fans commonly show more and more racing action. Most of the approaches described above, unfortunately, the exact opposite effect.
Does this not in fact, that during the season, no major changes once more in a vehicle presented are possible? That is, when an aerodynamic concept real secular but not as the expected step forward turns, a team can only rectify in the next season? Or is there the Friday? But probably not, right?
Refueling stops, if not already overtaken on the track, I will at least fill-ups! Why do I have developed over many years working in the recliner, a system with which I can advise Fuelwindows stint lengths and optimal unerring than any RTL-expert? Hmm?
The tire warmers I was always too great. I mean, sometimes seen from the outside: The mere idea that tires must be "kept hot" is, but also beyond their technical need is already great! Wow)
If those things were not so cumbersome and expensive, I could imagine the outside even when the Prols on the McD parking lot. And please, whoever might be a better measure of the radiance of the premier automotive sport?
I think KERS (in F1!) Is still silly. But please. Why not solar panels on the side pods?
> From 2010, banned refueling
Clear, no. Even if I do not want a mechanic is injured, was surely Massa's fuel line to the hammer :-) And also vary with the length of stint is eliminated.
> Shorten the race distance
as you have already written. Ridiculous. 1:45 to 2:00 h more likely also to expand.
> The quality will again be changed
I think the 3rd qualification rounds ansich class. 3x Action. In Q3 only what should be done so that there will be the fastest times run, and not in Q2. Furthermore, it should be the fastest car on P1, not the least charge. I found the whole year this ridiculous Qualifikationsgefreue the driver / poor / awkward. Often one has seen since the turn jenigen then as a first in the pit lane. The idiot teammate of a few laps can go longer, was then on Saturday the ass for anyone who was too lame.
the other above items is little to find fault, except that the period be extended to Friday definitely needs to be able to test new aero stuff.
Somehow I missed for some time in front of the warm-up race. Ne was somehow always great match and better than 1:15 drivel from Lauda and Rosberg, with the same old questions.
> Extension of engine life
Clear why the right saves money. But why do you allow only a few engines in the season? If you already deleted the other tests (which I think this is correct), one might be to upgrade the Friday. Let them go and then to test the fuel is all. So there is like 3 hours written test drives and then re-Sense. I would find's better if you had given to each driver per race weekend, a test engine.
> Standard gear
Absolutely makes sense. Especially in view of the standard KERS, which you then missed a standard port on the drive train. Since I could well imagine that this will be a complete unit.
> Standardkers
True cost of technical view of security. However, I would have expected because of the one company or another more defense, because the car manufacturers are also reinforced with hybrid cars on the market. That would have deserved in my opinion, almost such a high priority as a separate motor. But well, the fan's will be relatively unimportant, and it also does not bother me.
> Wind Tunnels
The limitation of the wind tunnels at 50 m / s I think dangerous in some way. In the past we have seen more beautiful demolish well-tested rear wing, now you can try out the test only with a ridiculous force. From my vantage point does not make sense. And where's the savings? Because the turbine makes a few turns less while picking up less electricity?
> Ban on refueling
Refueling has meant that the races were always performed tactical. Is certainly not much to save money and take out stops for a little excitement. Thus, the stops should not be too rare to specify either a minimum number of tires or tire manufacturer, but the demand that only the rubbers max. 50% of the race and keep the mixture gradually loses grip. There's definitely leverage to bring about an appeal.
> Race length
Since I have nothing more to say right? The WTCC races have been a joke and more a showcase than a sprint race. GPs with less than 90 minutes did not deserve its name.
> Quality
If you must start with a full tank Q3 needs a change. Then how should the Q3 Q1 and Q2 are driven with a minimum amount, or perhaps with maximum fuel. Not bad, would be best to get the 10 if Q1 and Q2, the last starting positions assigned. Then everyone must see that he is building a car that can overtake.
> Not bad, would get when the top 10 after Q1 and Q2, the final grid positions drawn against>. Then everyone must see that he is building a car that can overtake.
word.
as far as I'm remembered for the right idea comes with the consolidated statement of QUALLI + start of Monaco GP "because you can get over there so bad." Therefore, a full-ack Steffen. :)
circulation again as a consolidated statement = start reverse sequence may also be some from the last GP imho. I remember times at the Grand Prix of Japan from a few years where Kimi raikönen last in the qualitative as it had rained full, then the worst time has run and won by P17 in the consolidated statement of start. it was great to watch.
FIA officials also shoot for the likes over the target, "who has won the last time you will start from the pit lane after" :)
@ Abductee & Steffen: Oh well, I've got an idea, next we take the rules of Stefan Raab's Stock Car Crash Challenge, there's this ever so many overtaking and spectacle. I am sorry if I moan again, but I want to see serious motor sport where the fastest moves forward and wins.
book now I understand garnix more .. FOTA was for refueling ban?
"It appears that FOTA has set with their desire for a refueling ban in 2010 against FIA chief Max Mosley:" I opposed the ban on ""
Then let the men do not cry and team leaders all go with NEM FIA motor unit, then at least they have more viewers soon garkeine. Please 3sec 2x tire change, which brings murder voltage wenisgtens ne .. grml
@ Prometheus: already clear. I want to see them work serious motor sport where the fastest moves forward and wins. Unfortunately, it is as the top teams usually divide before a driver ... if it is still NEN strong drives a car stop in front and the rest is boring. because it means giving away the fastest among the places 1-10 go? So I hardly think that a certain Michael S. from K. won a few titles from whom he had 2-5 times and places further back Währe drove off, but to have been better between the Währe already ... right?
let's cut to the chase:
- You can cross a pole of the abdominal race.
- If you can build a modern car, the faster sec / round is but überholunfreundlich you will do it.
- Even a "überholfreundliches" car can be put on the pole so that the front and drive away.
-> You can even design with the master creates a boring überholfreundlichsten have.
Therefore, my considerations to the starting grid. I seem to remember in any of "the secret life of formula one" documentaries have heard that the thing with the grid comes from the Monaco Grand Prix from the 50s. because they wanted to prevent the faster cars behind the stand so it does not slow Böhsen are more accidents. (At that time were indeed the safety amssnamen ore as "hmm, we are there times NEN strohballen-go?" "I care.")
But a car the other in front of a car is able to overtake, must be faster / same speed after traveling. if you leave now, even the pit stops and hard mature intends to find ... where there should come from overtaking? when the press behind me the boost button, I press stop button and the boost. formula unit is also "honest rather average."
therefore: NEN bissi random at the start positions. is simple. does not cost anything. guaranteed overtaking.
what do you think?
"I want to see serious motor sport where the fastest moves forward and wins."
I agree. But it is in F1 as elsewhere: the case for its own sake (sports) is one less and less, and the true fans are always unimportant. It relies on the mass market, and you have to stick to it. This means in simple terms: It has to be uncomplicated and easily comprehend. Maybe you think so too after a shortening of the race.
By the way, I have a proposal that would guarantee more power at lower cost: Each course should have an irrigation system ... ;-)
I think the interesting development in the f1. if they make it so on will soon be no more f1 gebn.was ansich steal nothin 'so bad had no reason to visit other wäre.da bernie may ärgern.a1 series for 3 years does not go into too much brazil run because he wants money away for very real. then you can mexicocity the f1 status but know though never a race held as f1 and thus the next track for a 1 ist.als next question will stretch from the new and Filippo begehunngen the fia (when everybody knows that the really well by bernie controlled) is only 2 weeks before the race done and thus the chance for a race cancellation multiplied. and why you believe what bernie despite resistance of the teams makes a gp2 asia in the winter? to earn money so that is not one. the only thing would collapse in one of the many regrettable f1 motorsport arbeitslosen.dem itself it would not hurt if it were run like the interresantere superleagueformula or dtm and f1 a1.die run times are always good for an afternoon sleep. this is only my personal opinion and I do so that no one at all motorsport fans beleidigen.gruss
My problem is simply this: I think nothing of drawing lots of start-ups or systems such as reverse grids in motorsport. These penalty weights, how to use WTCC, DTM, FIA GT and others that I find terrible. I just can not see the reason behind it, to punish the best. Who builds the best car, and the first driver behind the wheel, which may also like to dominate the race or the season. That's just my idea of good racing.
Of course, this then goes to the detriment of the balance of the field and the spectacle it come about and sometimes boring race. That I deny not, and sometimes I'm even disappointed. But something is to stop something happening in sports, you do not know in advance how it will work.
I always get happy again, it's also boring football games, but no one comes out every year to introduce new rules in order to make the sport more spectacular. How about: Goals for the team that is lower in the table are, from now on twice, so that all exercise more, and we see a total of more goals. Completely absurd. Only when racing this exaggerated need for such a strange regulations.
Punish success I also unhelpful, I see it like @ Prometheus. The fastest should be the most successful, may ultimately that's the point in the sporting arena. If come of it high as a house or favorite series winner, then so be it. Should occur in the sport already times, I've heard. They have done their work well stop.
Can be connected to the quality as it was last performed it does not really improve anything that is reasonably fair, and is probably largely perceived as interesting and exciting. Motor sport has, in fact, the basic problem of being relatively abstract and thereby maintain access for spectators neueinsteigende difficult, so you could maybe make a little more transparency. For example, one could introduce to the race start (or after the qualification) a requirement for filling up (possibly with standardized maximum tank capacity sizes) to minimize the annoying guesswork about the actual quality performance of a car. This would also have other advantages, for example, manufacturers would then be encouraged to build fuel-efficient cars as possible.
I see the same .. draw lots, no thanks. reverse grid?
even a little comparison:
just imagine, would be for our athletic friends, Usan Bolt held at the 100m start line at 110m, because it's fast, yes. Sun if it were so exciting!
A reverse grid could perhaps be in NEM extra sprint races, making directly for the quality .. that would be a fun.
Re: "I always get the love back: it's also boring football games, but no one comes out every year to introduce new rules in order to make the sport more spectacular. [...] Totally absurd. Only when racing this exaggerated need for such a strange regulations. "
It's about true equality in sports and not that one of the group in the private sector generates most of the coal resources in this sport uses mercilessly. It's about the best team, the best driver and not the group size. If the larger corporations can afford qua its size, a wind tunnel, and thus can gain a knowledge advantage over smaller Graupenteams, is then exactly zero point zero by the brilliant performance of Lewis Hamilton or Kimi Raikkonen moved out was, but solely a consequence of the economic power outside of F1. How long has Sauber used to be able to finance their own wind tunnel?
Therefore, regulations and conditions must forth to try to equal opportunity.
And of course there are sports compensatory mechanisms that attempt to produce equality. As an example, the U.S. sports with the draft and Strength of schedule is called.
Perhaps it would be an approach would be more valuable than all the limitation of testing, wind tunnels, et al: Each team must survive a season on a fixed budget of U.S. $ xx million, whether or Force India, McLaren-Mercedes. The FIA laughs at a hundred accountants to monitor the compliance of the regulations.
I see things differently. Not that there are financial differences, I do not deny. But sporting success depends on more factors. Examples: Honda has one of the highest budgets and still failed terrific, not only in 2008, but in previous years. Toyota succeeds after several unsuccessful years, until so slow to grasp, walk in F1, despite the monster-budget. Renault with just under € 400 million was the entire first half of the season long not competitive. Torro Rosso, however, has clinched a victory and a lot of points. The customer may indeed be a team, but even if you add up the budget with the Red Bull, they have less than BMW, and yet they have just brought many victories, and were especially in the second half of the season mostly at eye level. It goes in racing to the combination of the best drivers and the best engineers, innovation and good decisions. Who has the wins. Of course, helps money, but it's not all.
But even that - to stay with my example - is again just for football. What is it with all the football clubs that are more recently by some businessmen bought or supported? Abramovich, Hopp, Gillett and what was it again? Look at it at Hoffenheim. Why has he taken care of because no one with more opportunities for rule changes? Why is the last two decades not someone come up with the idea to stem the series champion Bayern Munich?
For U.S. sports: the salary cap, I find good and useful. For a general budget constraint in F1, I would have nothing, because the distorted not the competition itself, but only sets the framework. Only they can, unfortunately, hardly prevail in practice. (However, that would be something for the football fans ^ ^) The draft, however, is also such a strange construct that I know anyway not really know what to make of it.
Draft is the slave trade. And a salary cap ensures equal opportunity for only superficially, it essentially guarantees that the owner can earn in major markets and a leg. That such a thing even exists, can be attributed only completely ineffective PAs normally is not.
And as always, if you try to ignore the realities of the market and to bend the world to their own beliefs, and a fixed budget for the team only led to an increasingly branched out rat hole in accounting rules and regulations. Honestly, it would be simpler to worlds, introduce a single formula.
I've been so recently said that if the manufacturer no longer participate, should you just stop the GP2 to Formula 1, and suddenly you have even a fraction of the current F1 team sponsors 13 highly profitable. Tight race. Driver in the foreground. And consequently it would be on top of that, too.